CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis
In this stage, the researcher gave the students a writing test as the post-test.
The researcher asked the students to write a descriptive paragraph under the title “My Best Friend”. The test was given to find out and measure the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph after giving treatment. The post-test was held on Wednesday, November 21st, 2018.
The next of table 3.1
ASPEK SCORE PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION WEIGHTING
1
The topic is not clear and the details are not relating to the topic.
ORGANIZATION (O)
(20%) Identification
Description
4
Identification is complete and descriptions are arranged with proper connectives.
2x 3
Identification is almost complete and descriptions are arranged with almost proper connectives.
2
Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with few misuse of connectives.
1
Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with misuse of connectives.
GRAMMAR (G) 20%
Use present tense Agreement
4 Very few grammatical or agreement inaccuracies.
2x 3
few grammatical or agreement inaccuracies but not affect on meaning.
2 Numerous grammatical or agreement inaccuracies.
1 Frequent grammatical or agreement inaccuracies.
WORD CHOICE (W)
15%
Vocabulary
4 Effective word choice and word forms.
1,5x 3
Few misuse of vocabularies, word forms, but not change the meaning.
2 Limited range confusing words and word form.
1
Very poor knowledge of words, word forms and not understandable.
The next of table 3.1
ASPEK SCORE PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION WEIGHTING
MECHANICS (M) 15%
Spelling Punctuation Capitalization
4 It uses correct spelling, punctuation and capitalization
1,5x 3
It has occasional errors of spelling, punctuation and capitalization
2
It has frequent of spelling, punctuation and capitalization
1
It is dominated by errores spelling, punctuation and capitalization
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒: 3𝐶 + 20 + 2𝐺 + 1,5𝑊 + 1,5𝑀
40 𝑥10
3.5.2 The Classification of the Students Score Table 3.2 Classification of students’ score5
No. Classification Score
1. Excellent 86-100
2. Good 71-85
3. Fair 56-70
4. Poor 41-55
5. Very Poor ≤ 40
3.5.3 Scoring the Students’ Writing of Pre-test and Post-test 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠′𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡
𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑥 100
5Depdikbud, Petunjuk Pedoman Belajar dan Sistem Penelitian (Jakarta: Depdikbud, 1997), p.
25.
1. Finding out the mean score of students’ writing score uses the formula:
𝑀 = ∑𝑋 𝑁 In which:
X: Mean score
∑: Total Score
N: The total number of students.6
2. Calculating the rate percentage of the students’ score by using the following formula:
𝑋 = 𝐹
𝑁𝑥 100%
In which:
P: Persentage F: Frequency
N: Total of number of sample.7
3. Finding out the difference of the mean score between pre-test and post-test by calculate the T-test value using the following formula:
𝑡 = 𝐷
√𝐷2−(∑𝐷)2 𝑁(𝑁 − 1)𝑁 In Which:
T = Test of significance
D = The mean score of difference (X2-X1)
∑D = The sum of the total score
6Jarome M, Sattler, Assesment of Children (San Dieogo: Jerome M. Sattler publisher, 1988, p.14.
7Anas Sudijono, Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan (Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2008), p.81.
∑D2 = The square of the sum score of difference N = The total sample.8
8L. R. Gay, Education Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application Second Edition (Colombus: Charles E Meril Publishing, 1981), p.331.
37 discussion of the research.
4.1 Findings
The finding of this research deal with the classification of the students’ pre- test and post-test. To find out the answer to the research question in the previous chapter, the researcher gave a test that was given twice. A pre-test was given before treatment to know and measure the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph, while post-test was given after treatment through dictogloss technique. The result of the post-test of this research can answer the question of this research that aims to find out whether dictogloss technique able or not to improve the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph of second-grade students at MTs DDI At-taqwa Jampue Pinrang.
4.1.1 Students’ Score in Writing Descriptive Paragraph.
This part covers the result of data analysis about the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph of second-grade students at MTs DDI At-taqwa Jampue Pinrang.
4.1.1.1 The Students’ Scores in Pre test
The pre-test had been done before the application of dictogloss technique. It was conducted on Friday, November 2nd, 2018. The students was assigned to write a descriptive paragraph. The researcher found the result of the students’ score in pre- test based on the scoring rubric of writing descriptive text which refers to five points
they are content, organization, grammar, word choice and mechanics the information is shown in the following table:
Table 4.1 The students’ scores in pre-test based on scoring rubric of writing descriptive text
No. Student
Aspect
TS FS
C O G W M
1. Student 1 1 2 1 1 1 12 30
2. Student 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 25
3. Student 3 2 2 1 1 1 15 38
4. Student 4 1 2 1 1 2 14 34
5. Student 5 1 2 2 2 1 16 39
6. Student 6 2 1 2 1 3 18 45
7. Student 7 1 2 1 1 1 12 30
8. Student 8 1 2 1 1 1 12 30
9. Student 9 2 2 2 1 1 17 43
10. Student 10 1 1 1 1 1 10 25
11. Student 11 2 1 2 1 1 15 38
12. Student 12 1 1 1 1 1 10 25
13. Student 13 2 2 1 1 1 15 38
14. Student 14 1 1 1 1 1 10 25
15. Student 15 1 2 1 1 1 12 30
16. Student 16 3 3 1 2 1 22 54
17. Student 17 1 1 2 1 2 14 34
18. Student 18 1 1 1 1 1 10 25
19. Student 19 2 3 2 1 1 19 48
In which:
C : Content W : Word Choice
O : Organization M : Mechanics
G : Grammar TS : Total Score
FS : Final Score
After knowing the students’ score in pre-test based on scoring rubric of writing descriptive text, the researcher presented the mean score of the students’ pre- test.
Table 4.2 The students’ mean scores in pre-test Student
Pre-test of the students (X1)
Max Score Score (Xx) Xx2 Classification
Student 1 40 30 900 Very Poor
Student 2 40 25 625 Very Poor
Student 3 40 38 1444 Very Poor
Student 4 40 34 1156 Very Poor
Student 5 40 39 1521 Very Poor
Student 6 40 45 2025 Poor
Student 7 40 30 900 Very Poor
Student 8 40 30 900 Very Poor
Student 9 40 43 1849 Poor
Student 10 40 25 625 Very Poor
Student 11 40 38 1444 Very Poor
Student 12 40 25 625 Very Poor
Student 13 40 38 1444 Very Poor
The next of table 4.2 Student
Pre-test of the students (X1)
Max Score Score (Xx) Xx2 Classification
Student 14 40 25 625 Very Poor
Student 15 40 30 900 Very Poor
Student 16 40 54 2916 Poor
Student 17 40 34 1156 Very Poor
Student 18 40 25 625 Very Poor
Student 19 40 48 2304 Poor
∑Xx = 656 ∑Xx2 = 23984
The table above that shows the result of students’ writing score before the application of dictogloss technique. There were fifteen students who gained a very poor scores, and four students gained poor scores. The total score in pre-test was 656.
It indicates most of the VIII.1 students’ writing ability is very low, because most of the students gained a very poor score. The following are the process of calculation to find out the mean score and standard deviation based on the calculation of students score in pre-test of table 4.2
Firstly, the researcher calculated the mean score of the pre-test.
𝑀 = ∑ 𝑋𝑥 𝑁
𝑀 = 656 19 𝑀 = 34,53
So, the mean score (Xx) of pre-test is 34,53
Secondly, the researcher calculated the standard deviation of the pre-test:
𝑀 =√∑ 𝑋𝑥2− (∑ 𝑋 𝑥)2 𝑁 𝑁 − 1
𝑀 =√23984 − 6562 19 19 − 1
𝑀 =√23984 − 430336 19 18
𝑀 = √23984 − 22649,27 18
𝑀 = √1334,73 18 𝑀 = √74,15 𝑀 = 8,6
So, the result of the standar deviation of the pre-test is 8,6 4.1.1.2 The Students’ Score in Post-test
The post-test had been done after applying of dictogloss technique. It was conducted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2018. The students’ score in post-test would be presented in the following table:
Table 4.3 The students’ score in post-test based on scoring rubric of writing descriptive text
No Student
Aspect
TS FS
C O G W M
1. Student 1 3 3 2 2 2 25 63
2. Student 2 3 3 2 2 1 24 60
The next of table 4.3 No Students
Aspect
TS FS
C O G W M
3. Student 3 3 3 2 2 2 25 63
4. Student 4 2 2 2 2 2 20 50
5. Student 5 3 4 2 3 2 29 73
6. Student 6 3 3 2 3 2 27 68
7. Student 7 3 2 2 2 1 22 55
8. Student 8 3 3 2 2 2 25 63
9. Student 9 3 3 2 2 2 25 63
10. Student 10 2 2 2 2 2 20 50
11. Student 11 2 3 2 2 2 22 55
12. Student 12 4 3 3 2 2 30 75
13. Student 13 2 3 2 2 2 22 55
14. Student 14 2 2 1 1 1 15 38
15. Student 15 2 2 2 2 2 20 50
16. Student 16 4 4 3 3 2 34 85
17. Student 17 2 2 2 1 1 17 43
18. Student 18 2 1 1 2 1 15 38
19. Student 19 2 2 2 2 2 20 50
In which:
C : Content W : Word Choice
O : Organization M : Mechanics
G : Grammar TS : Total Score
FS : Final Score
After knowing the students’ score in post-test based on the scoring rubric of writing descriptive text. The researcher presented the mean score of the students’ pre- test.
Table 4.4 The students’ mean score in post-test Student
Post-test of the students (Xy)
Max Score Score (Xy) Xy2 Classification
Student 1 40 63 3969 Fair
Student 2 40 60 3600 Fair
Student 3 40 63 3969 Fair
Student 4 40 50 2500 Fair
Student 5 40 73 5329 Good
Student 6 40 68 4624 Fair
Student 7 40 55 3025 Poor
Student 8 40 63 3969 Fair
Student 9 40 63 3969 Fair
Student 10 40 50 2500 Poor
Student 11 40 55 3025 Fair
Student 12 40 75 5625 Good
Student 13 40 55 3025 Fair
Student 14 40 38 1444 Very Poor
Student 15 40 50 2500 Poor
Student 16 40 85 7225 Good
Student 17 40 43 1849 Poor
Student 18 40 38 1444 Very Poor
Student 19 40 50 2500 Poor
∑Xy= 1097 ∑Xy2 = 66091
The table above that shows the result of students’ writing score after the application of dictogloss technique. There were two students who got the very poor scores, five students got the poor scores, nine students got fair scores and three students got good scores. The total scores in post-test is 1097. It means that the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph was significantly better after getting the treatment. The following are the process of calculation to find out the mean score and standard deviation based on the calculation of students score in post-test of table 4.3.
𝑀 = ∑ 𝑋𝑦 𝑁 𝑀 = 1097
19 𝑀 = 57,74
So, the mean score (Xy) of post-test is 57,74
The following are the process of calculation of standard deviation in post-test:
𝑆𝐷 =√∑ 𝑋𝑦2− (∑ 𝑋 𝑦)2 𝑁 𝑁 − 1
𝑆𝐷 =√66091 − 10972 19 19 − 1
𝑆𝐷 =√66091 −
1203409 19 18
𝑆𝐷 = √66091 − 63337,32 18
𝑆𝐷 = √2753,68 18
𝑆𝐷 = √152,98 𝑆𝐷 = 12,37
So, the result of the standard deviation of the post-test is 12,37.
4.1.1.3 The Comparison between the Students’ Scores in Pre-test and Post-test The result of the pre-test and post-test showing in the following table:
Table 4.5 The mean score and standard deviation of the pre-test and post-test
Test Mean Score Standard Deviation
Pre-test 34,53 8,6
Post-test 57,74 12,37
The data above showed that there was an improvement while doing pre-test up to post-test, in pre-test had score 34,53 and the post-test score increased become 57,74. Besides that, the standard deviation of pre-test was 8,6 while the standard deviation of post-test was 12,37.
As the result at this item was the mean score of the post-test was greater than the result of mean score in the pre-test. It can be concluded that the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph had improvement after doing the learning process that used the dictogloss technique. Although there were two students still got very poor score, but the other students show their improvement in writing descriptive paragraph after doing treatment with used dictogloss technique.
4.1.1.4 The rate percentage of the frequency of the pre-test and post-test
The following table shows the percentage of the frequency in pre-test and post-test.
Table 4.6 The Rate Percentage of the Frequency of the Pre-test and Post-test
No Classification Score
Frequency Percentage
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
1 Very Good 86-100 0 0 0 0
2 Good 71-85 0 3 0 15,79
3 Fair 56-70 0 9 0 47,37
4 Poor 41-55 4 5 21,05 26,31
5 Very Poor ≤40 15 2 78,95 10,53
Total 19 19 100% 100%
Table 4.6 showed the students’ percentage of pre-test was most common in very poor score namely fifteen students and it was the high percentage 78,95%.
Besides that, there is no student got a very good score, in fact, there is no student who got a good score. It means the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph was still very low. Whereas, the percentage of post-test indicated that there was an increasing percentage of the students in writing descriptive paragraph because there were three students gained good scores with the percentage is 15,79%. Even though, as can be seen, in a great majority of the score was fair score namely nine students with the percentage is 47,37%. But, in this case, there were two students still got a very poor score. It can be concluded that there was an increasing percentage after doing pre-test up to post-test.
4.1.2 Dictogloss Technique is Able to Improve the Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraph of Second-grade Students at MTs DDI At-taqwa Jampue Pinrang
This part discusses the result of data analysis about dictogloss technique able to improve students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph of second-grade students at MTs DDI At-taqwa Jampue Pinrang.
4.1.2.1 T-test Value
The following is the table to find out the difference of the mean score between pre-test and post-test.
Table 4.7 The worksheet of the calculation of the score on pre-test and post- test
No Xx Xy (Xx)2 (Xy)2 D(Xy-Xx) D(Xy-Xx)2
1 30 63 900 3969 33 1089
2 25 60 625 3600 35 1225
3 38 63 1444 3969 25 625
4 34 50 1156 2500 16 256
5 39 73 1521 5329 34 1156
6 45 68 2025 4624 23 529
7 30 55 900 3025 25 625
8 30 63 900 3969 33 1089
9 43 63 1849 3969 20 400
10 25 50 625 2500 25 625
11 38 55 1444 3025 17 289
12 25 75 625 5625 50 2500
13 38 55 1444 3025 17 289
14 25 38 625 1444 13 169
15 30 50 900 2500 20 400
The next of table 4.7
No Xx Xy (Xx)2 (Xy)2 D(Xy-Xx) D(Xy-Xx)2
16 54 85 2916 7225 31 961
17 34 43 1156 1849 9 81
18 25 38 625 1444 13 169
19 48 50 2304 2500 2 4
Total 656 1097 23984 66091 441 12481
In the other to see the students’ score, the following is t-test was statistically applied the formula:
𝐷 = ∑ 𝐷
𝑁 = 441
19 = 23,21
The calculation of the t-test value as follow:
𝑡 = 𝐷
√∑ 𝐷2− (∑ 𝐷)2 𝑁 (𝑁 − 1)𝑁
𝑡 = 𝐷
√∑ 𝐷2− (∑ 𝐷)2 𝑁 (𝑁 − 1)𝑁
𝑡 = 23,210
√12481 −4412 19 (19 − 1)19
𝑡 = 23,210
√12481 −194481 19 (19 − 1)19
𝑡 = 23,210
√12481 − 10235,84 19 (18)
𝑡 = 23,210
√2245,16 342 𝑡 = 23,210
√6,6 𝑡 = 23,210
2,57 𝒕 = 𝟗, 𝟎𝟑
Thus, the t-tst value is 9,03
Table 4.8 The Test of Significance
Variable T-test T-table value
Pre-test – Post-test 9,03 2,101
The data above showed that the value of t-test was greater than t-table value.
It indicated that there was a significant difference between the result of students’ pre- test and post-test.
4.1.2.2 Hypothesis Testing
To find out degree of freedom (df) the researcher used the following formula:
Df = N- 1
= 19-1
=18
For the level, significant (p) 5% and df = 18, and the value of the table was 2,101. While the value of t-test was 9,03. It can be concluded that the t-test value was greater than t-table (9,03 ≥ 2,101). Thus, it means that the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph was significantly better after getting the treatment. So, the null hypothesis (H0) was refused and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. It has
been found that there was an improvement of dictogloss technique on students’
ability in writing descriptive paragraph.
4.2 Discussion
4.2.1 The Improvement of Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraph through Dictogloss Technique
By looking at the test finding, from the data provided in the classification table based on the aspect of writing, clearly to see that there were no students who got very good score and good score. There were four (21,05%) students got poor score and fifteen (78,95%) students got very poor score. Whereas, in the post-test, there were three (15,79%) students got good score, nine (47,37%) students got fair score, five (26,31%) students got poor score and two (10,53%) students got very poor score.
From the result, the researcher concluded that the students’ ability in writing descriptive improved from very poor up to good classification.
Here were some examples that dictogloss technique able to improve students’
ability in writing descriptve paragraph by looking at the aspect of writing, they were the content, organization, grammar, word choice and mechanics. The statement was proved by looking at the students’ work in pre-test and post-test. Look at the following writing test.
Example:
1. Student 16, her name is St. Zahra Saini in Pre-test, she got 54 scores in the pre-test and then increased become 84 scores in the post-test. According to her exercise in the pre-test, the topic was complete and clear but the details are not relating to the topic, in the organization in which there were two points in this part, they were identification and description she got 3 points because her identification was arranged
with almost proper connectives. Besides that, her grammar and agreement still inaccuracies. Then, she had limited range confusing words and word form. As well as she still had dominated by errors spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. After implementing dictogloss technique in the classroom the researcher doing post-test to the students. Apparently, there was an improvement to the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph. It can be seen by looking the test worked by St. Zahra Saini.
Her topic was complete and clear, and the details were relating to the topic. Then, her identification was almost complete, and the description was arranged with almost proper connectives. Besides that, few of her grammatical or agreement inaccuracies, but not affect on meaning. She had few misuses of vocabularies, word forms, but not change the meaning. Although, she had frequent spelling, punctuation and capitalization.
2. Student 16, her name is Irmaya Alyasari. She got 39 scores in the pre-test and then increased become 72 scores in the post-test. By looking at her exercise. In content, she got 1 score in pre-test but increase in post-test with 3 scores. In addition, looking by her organization. She got 3 scores in the pre-test, her identification was not complete and her description was arranged with few misuses of connectives, but in post-test her topic was complete and descriptions were arranged with proper connectives so the researcher gaves 4 points for her organization. Besides that, she got 2 scores in grammar at the pre-test and at the post-test she still had numerous grammatical or agreement inaccuracies like at the pre-test. Her word choice also increased from 2 scores up to 3 scores, and her mechanics from 1 score up to 2 scores.
In terms of students’ scores in generating ideas, the researcher got the result from the research that dictogloss technique gave influence for the students to have good motivation, made them easier to organize their idea, and made a relationship with their friends in the group to fix their problems together. Because dictogloss is a technique with the main concept is to building and supporting enjoyable classroom environment by engaging students to be actively involved in groups when doing class activities, and dictogloss give a lot of opportunities to interact each other. Besides, dictogloss has some stages that facilitate the students to improve their writing ability.
The reconstruction stage of dictogloss facilitates the students to be able to reconstruct a dictated-text by using their own language. Then, the correction and analysis stage provides feedback that facilitates them to correct their mistakes in writing aspects namely content, organization, grammar, word choice and mechanics. It can be concluded that dictogloss made the students to more interested and easier to write a descriptive paragraph . It can be seen by looking the mean score of students’ pre-test (34,53) before giving treatment by using dictogloss technique and increase become 57, 74 in post-test after giving treatment in four times by using dictogloss technique.
It means there were differences and development before and after used dictogloss technique in teaching writing.
The use of dictogloss technique was able to develop the students’ ability in writing decriptive paragraph. It was supported by some previous related research findings. One of them was Abid Choirul Fikri (2016), he said that dictogloss technique had a positive effect in learning writing of descriptive paragraph. The students’ motivation was increased due to teamwork and the students who had lower ability can asked and discussed their weakness to the students who had the higher
ability in teaching writing. It means that dictogloss technique made the students more interesting in teaching writing because if they found problems in teaching process, they could get the solution from their other friends. That statement was supported by Vasiljevic (2010), she mention that Dictogloss promotes learners’ autonomy.
Students are expected to help each other to recreate the text rather than depend on the teacher to provide the information. The analysis and correction stage enables the students to see where they have done well and where they need to improve. It can be concluded that dictgoloss could made the students more interesting in learning of writing descriptive paragraph. Because, through active learner involvement students come to confront their own strengths and weaknesses in English language use. In so doing, they find out what they do not know, then they find out what they need to know.
Based on the result of the research above the theory in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that using dictogloss technique could improve the students’ ability in writing. It is because students were involved in the reconstruction stage and correction and analysis stage. It implies that the researcher needs to use dictogloss technique. And dictogloss could improve the students’ participation in English teaching and learning process. It means that dictogloss had a possitive effect to improved the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph of second-grade students at MTs DDI At-taqwa Jampue Pinrang.
4.2.2 The Ways of the Implementation Dictogloss Technique in Improving the Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraph
To find out how the dictogloss technique able to improve the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph, the researcher got some pieces of information from
the students’ activities in learning process. According to Harmer (2007), dictogloss is collaborative writing in which students work together in groups to constructing a text read by the teacher. In applying dictogloss technique there were four stages, namely:
preparation, dictation, reconstructing and analysis and correction. Where in the first stage it was preparation stage. The students were prepared for the topic or the text that would be heard in dictation stage. The students were gave some keywords about the topic that would come up at dictation stage and a picture to illustrate the topic.
Next, the dictation stage was the students would hear the paragraph read by the teacher twice in normal speed. In the first dictation, the students only listened and did not wrote anything. But, in the second dictation, the students should have take notes about the important information that they could caught from the paragraph read, those notes would help them in reconstructing stage. The third stage was reconstructing, this stage was the central part of dictogloss technique, according to Vasiljevic (2010) dictogloss technique is an effective way of combining individual and group activities, it is because dictogloss combines individual and group activities which the students work together to reconstruct the text by their own individual cognitive skill. At reconstructing stage the students should pool their notes that they could caught in the dictation stage, the students should be discussed with their group’s members to reconstruct the paragraph together. The students should pay attention to the component of writing. They were the content, organization, grammar, word choice and mechanics. Besides that their paragraph should not be same as the original, but the meaning should be the same as the original paragraph. Reconstruction stage helps the students to compare input to their own representation of the text. And the last stage was analysis and correction. At this stage, the others group would analyze other